About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
like? >> we learned a lot of useful information. for us, it is going beyond just focusing on people with disabilities to try to get into what all of us are focused on, workforce development. we are over and over again from employers that there are jobs available, but there are skills gaps, and to the extent that we can plug in people with disabilities who may have expertise, either full-time or part-time, it is a benefit not just helping people with disabilities. it would be a benefit to our employers. >> you have your head up -- hand up? >> i would like to say that all of you are employers, and some of the biggest employers in your states. it is really important to have a team of your senior people that are being held accountable. the rest and work going on for many years -- the rest and work going on for many years -- there has been work going on for many years, getting information on what they are actually doing and whether the numbers are moving up or not. looking at what you are doing with the department of rehabilitation, it is like 80% federal, 20% state. some states are not
. to reporters to help us with this conversation, and the tailor the associated press, congressional reporter, and roxanne from bloomberg news, congressional reporter. >> mr. chairman, as everybody in washington is very concerned about this phenomenon called a sequester, these automatic bid into automatic indiscriminate cuts across the board, 8% to the pentagon, you have been looking at the kind of impact this will have. what you expect? how much damage you think it would do four different operations? >> needless to say, being an appropriate, but think it is an idiotic way to do business. these are indiscriminate cuts. they are not thought through. they're just automatic across- the-board, without any consideration of good, bad or evil or whatever. so i think the cuts are devastating. i am sad to see take place. but i don't see any effort being made realistically to stop it. >> do you think that, once the sequestered takes effect, that people will see the wide ranging implications and that there will actually start working together to figure out how to replace it or a verdict? >> that is my h
appreciate it. two reporters tho to help us, andy taylor, associated press, congressional reporter and roxannea turon, bloomberg reporter as well. andy, first question. go ahead. >> well, mr. chairman, as everybody in washington is very concerned about this phenomenon called the sequester which is the benefit of the audience, these automatic indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, 5% to domestic agencies, 8% to the pentagon, you've been looking at the kind of impact this will have. what do you expect? how much damage do you think it would do for government operations? how badly would it affect your constituents and people across the country? >> well, needless to say, being an appropriator, i think it's an idiotic way to do business. these are indiscriminate cuts. they're not thought through but are automatic across the board without any consideration of good, bad or evil, or whatever. so i think the cuts are devastating. i'm sad to see it take place but i don't see an effort being made realistically to stop it. >> do you, mr. chairman, do you think that once the sequester actually ta
of the house judiciary committee, congressman bob goodlatte. thank you for being with us today. >> good to be with you and your viewers. >> let me introduce our reporters.alan gomez, reporter for "usa today." >> thanks for agreeing to do this. on friday, you and your colleagues on the house to sherry committee republican-- house judiciary committee and colleagues adjusted to the obama administration that they are not doing a good job enforcing current gun laws. during the peak that the bush administration, there were 11,000 prosecutions of people who are illegally attempting to purchase a firearm. at its peak in the obama administration, there have been 7700 such prosecutions. your argument being that until the obama administration more effectively enforce current gun laws, there may be should not be any new gun laws. i'm curious what your measure of success would be for the justice department once they reach that point. is there a threshold you would like to see them reached before new gun legislation is considered? >> we are not saying that we are not going to be looking at new gun la
boehner said he could do. use some of their revenue from closing loopholes to close the deposit. you are right. republicans so far have said they're not willing to close one tax loophole, not for a corporate jet for big tax -- big oil companies for the purpose of reducing the deficit. when it is that trade-off, are they more interested in protecting the economy and defense spending? then i think he will begin to see a little bit of a change in attitude. >> what is there is not a change in attitude and calculations? this deadline is different than previous ones. we were facing the prospect of a default. it was a stone wall. we could not afford to hit it. where were facing taxes immediately going up. it was a pretty hard stonewall we could not afford to hit. this time, they're saying we really do not want this to happen, but if it does it is the other guy's fault. is that kind of what we are seeing here? >> the president has been very clear. he does not want this to happen. it would be bought for the economy and very disruptive to important services right across the board whether it de
committee. thank you for being a part of "newsmakers." congressional reporters joining us. david has the first question. >> the hearings last week on gun-control, did they change anything? did they change the nature of the debate? >> i think there was, coming out of the hearing, i felt a significant less support for the feinstein bill than i thought there was going into it. that could change. we're going to have more hearings later on. i felt that. another thing i felt was the other people participating were all good authorities in their area. a lot of information came out that will be very valuable to you. if i had to name on thing i think is going to be most difficult to deal with but is something we definitely have to deal with is the mental health issues and the reporting to the data base. we also have to deal with all the felonies. when the mental health issue is so important because in the case of virginia tech, tucson, and colorado it is an issue in all of those killings. >> can i ask you specifically what gave you the sense that the portions of the support on the feinstein am
and in the case of tucson or even a ban on those guns, none were used in those particular killings. then you have a situation where you want to ban semi-automatic rifles but you do not ban semi- automatic shotguns. the picking and choosing makes it difficult to justify that somehow you ban some and not others, and you figure 500 killings in chicago over the last year, mostly done by hand guns. when you look at the whole picture, in mesa difficult to say -- it makes it difficult to say the ban these guns. >> the mentioned mental illness. do you think there should be a broader background check given the fact that people can buy guns and gun shows are privately sell them and not require a background check? >> probably there is not enough background checks. when you get into a one-on-one sale as opposed to a business and some friend was to sell to another friend, i do not think i want to go that far. i can tell you this. if there is an industry of purchasing of guns, it is done to buy guns for people that cannot get through the data base. let's a previous felons as an example. i think we have to have
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)